Veronika Vorobyov vs. Pardeep Sharma

Summary: Attorney Alvin Lee represented the plaintiff who claimed her wedding business had been slandered thus causing her to lose business and income.

Defendant sought information relating to the lost business income. Plaintiff objected and refused. The judge ordered answers and imposed $780 in sanctions.



From the Judge:

The motion at-issue involved a motion to compel responses to document requests and written questions sent to Lee's client.

Alvin Lee's client claimed her catering business had lost income due to defendant's statements. Defendant served various discovery relating to what plaintiff's income was.

At the outset, the judge took the time to note Mr. Lee failed to timely oppose the motion. The judge said Lee "again" could not get his papers done on time, suggesting an ongoing and repeated problem.

Then the judge said Alvin Lee, Esq.'s, papers - when he finally got them done - "again" failed to comply with a California Rules of Court.

Turning to the merits of the motion and defendant's request to compel discovery responses, the judge said questions asked for plaintiff's business income. Attorney Lee's office had objected the questions invaded a tax privilege and were private. The judge said defendant was entitled to this information since plaintiff claimed lost income.

There was a question asking Lee's client to state "the total amount of money plaintiff claims to have lost to date as a result of defendants' alleged conduct." Lee objected it was asked and answered. The judge first said this was not a valid objection, but regardless, plaintiff had not provided this information, and even if plaintiff had it was no undue burden to simply list the amount.

Requests for documents were made relating to persons who had been referenced during plaintiff's deposition. Lee objected the requests were value, ambiguous, too broad, and did not seek admissible evidence. The judge said none of the objections justified a blanked refusal to provide any documents at all.

The judge ordered plaintiff to respond to the discovery without objection.

The court also found the "opposition to the present motion was not substantially justified ...." and this deserved sanctions.

The judge sanctioned plaintiff $780.



From the Court File:

The motion filed by defendant only sought sanctions against plaintiff. Not her attorney.



Lawzilla Commentary:

The judge's order says Lee's client was sanctioned $780, but not attorney Lee himself. This is because the motion defendant filed only listed plaintiff.

In our opinion, all of the problems the judge referred to involved improper objections to discovery. Objections are made by attorneys.

It could be Lee's client asked that he make these objections. But it is ultimately up to the attorney not to make objections or take actions which are sanctionable.


One question we have - if attorney Alvin Lee was objecting to providing business income information, how did he plan on proving damages at trial for his client?

It seems to us that Lee would want, or need, to show how much money his client was making before the slander - call it "X" - and how much money she was making after the slander - call it "Y". X minus Y is lost income and damages.

Would you hire Alvin Lee to be your attorney?

This is just one case, and the sanctions were actually imposed on his client and not the attorney, but we remain mystified about why the objections to discovery were made.

The judge said the objections were not substantially justified and deserved sanctions. But we come back to the question: if the lawsuit is about lost income due to slander, how does one prove lost income while objecting to the production of income information?

Maybe the plaintiff did not want to disclose her finances, but in our opinion - if that was the situation - why file the lawsuit?

Alvin Lee was admitted to the California Bar in 2012. Bar Number 284718.

Law Offices of Alvin H. Lee
6400 Village Parkway Suite 201
Dublin, California 94568

Law School: Thomas Cooley

Sanctions are Recoverable as a Judgment - Analysis of the little known fact that sanctions awarded in a lawsuit can be enforced as their own separate judgment. Surprise someone by putting a lien on their bank account, home, cases, etc.